Edwin Vieira and Timothy Baldwin: Both Wrong on Secession

I am the little boy, standing in the crowd along the parade route, who points out that the Emperor is naked.

Yesterday I ran attorney Edwin Vieira’s last article entitled “A Dissenting Opinion on Secession Part 3.” Another attorney, Timothy Baldwin of the Liberty Defense League has jumped into the fray about Vieira’s articles, defending secession in both concept and practice. I will not be posting his articles.

They are both wrong.

They both spent an inordinate amount of time, research and words explaining the breadth and meaning of the Constitution. They look at the intent of the Framers, the Federalist Papers, court cases and historical events to prove their points.

I liken this effort on the part of both authors to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The 18th Century attorney Lysander Spooner (from Worcester, Massachusetts) settled the issue of the Constitution once and for all when he wrote the epic book “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.”

He proved conclusively that the Constitution has no binding authority upon the Federal Government or any individual. The document is not a legal contract nor is it a treaty between states. Spooner notes that the Federal government, as established by a legal contract, could not legally bind all persons living in the nation since none had ever signed their names or given their consent to it. That consent had always been assumed, which fails the most basic burdens of proof for a valid contract in the courtroom.

It might be argued (in vain, I think) that the persons living at the time of the ratification may have in some way been bound by the Constitution. However, future generations who did not agree to it could not be bound to its terms, since it is not a contract or treaty. Future generations is us.

Adherence to the Constitution relies solely upon the “consent of the governed” as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. However, that adherence seems to only go one way…the citizen toward the government. Washington does not willingly adhere, nor accept constitutional restrictions on its power.

Look at another example of living in a society that operates under a set of rules that you were born into. We here in the American part of Western Civilization are steeped in Christendom. Our laws and social mores are based upon the human rules of conduct found in the pages of the Bible. So, when we are born in the USA, we are raised in an atmosphere that is decidedly slanted toward Christianity. Sure, some of the mores have their foundation in natural law, but we are born into this culture. That has nothing to do with whether any two parties agreed to be bound by Biblical law. It is as much a part of you and me as the air we breathe. Only later, when we start reading books, do we find that there is a structure about why we behave as we do. We also learn that we have a choice to accept or reject.

There is a cultural memory in America about the US Constitution, almost Biblical in its style. Even though that memory has waned to the point of disappearance, people still think that the government should only take constitutional actions. Then guys like Vieira and Baldwin, and websites like the Tenth Amendment Center, build entire doctrines around the Constitution. Authors have written, and are still writing books about constitutional law and its practical use. Meanwhile, none of them can make a convincing argument that the US Constitution is enforceable on any individual or governmental entity in the United States.

Therefore, all debate about the constitutionality of the actions of those in Washington DC is entirely moot. Those in DC already know that they cannot be held to the strictures of the Constitution…their daily actions prove that truth. All three branches of government…Legislative, Executive and Judicial…all entirely ignore the Constitution and do absolutely as they please. As it relates to the Judicial branch, at least they feign an interest in constitutionality as they deliberate court cases. But taken as a whole, the Federal government has no use for the Constitution.

All of this arguing, writing, bowing, curtseying, and dancing amounts to little more than the Kabuki theater made popular in Japan. Kabuki theater was the avant-garde, or theater of the bizarre. When learned, reasonable, intelligent-appearing people are convinced that they should continue to argue about the finer points of a dead document, and then attempt to enforce the terms of the dead document upon each other, there is a gigantic cognitive disconnection within the society.

Some of you people need to get a grip on reality.

In conclusion, any American state that wishes to secede from the United States may do so. There is no constitutional law anywhere that prevents it, since the Constitution is dead.

For those readers who have not become familiar with the works of Lysander Spooner, you may read “No Treason” for free online at: No Treason. The book is only about 35 pages in length.

There are many other works by Spooner at the website. You’d be very well served to spend a few hours reading Spooner’s brilliance.

Post navigation

10 Responses to Edwin Vieira and Timothy Baldwin: Both Wrong on Secession

You call for states to secede from the federal government, and you speak of the U.S. Constitution having no binding authority based on Spooner’s argument. My question is: Wouldn’t Spooner’s “no binding authority” argument apply equally to the political charter of every American state because nobody alive today signed those charters? If so, then why call for state secession? Why not dismiss state governments as illegitimate and urge each individual to recognize his or her own self-sovereignty?

I must agree with John Howard here. All levels of government are self-induced and self-imposed. All of us who secede, whether personal, county, state, or world, will certainly be forced to endure the wrath of the Rulers!

Here in Texas, it’s Constitution is longer and more fulla gibberish than the USA’s. So I am having a real problem figuring out how state secession will be a long-run improvement in any way.

Guess it’s “kick all the bastards out”, go with no-ruler or form a strictly voluntary non-government.

Gentlemen: If the old form of constitution has the same problems as the State constitutions, don’t you think it’s time to change the form of the government? Read this article at Writing The New Texas Constitution.

Thanks for the referral to that article. It was very insightful and well written. However, the recommended corporate model to maintain social order (in lieu of what we call political government) strikes me as somewhat arbitrary. My understanding is that the corporate model was formulated and chartered by government initially as an independent organization for public works. I understand also that a central principle of incorporation is limited liability of the directors and executives. I think we would agree that all individuals should be fully accountable for their actions, and that any kind of personal immunity has no place in a moral and legitimate social structure. Since the corporate model is a government creation and embraces the same personal immunity for its executives as applied to public office holders, why not reject the corporate model altogether and propose a private proprietary model that avoids those drawbacks?

The corporate model is just that…a model. Constitution writers could write it as they see fit. Limited liability is not what I proposed, so it could easily be omitted. But with sovereign immunity enjoyed and exploited by governments we now have, we certainly would not want to give it to a new nation. The corporate model is proposed to create a form of government that can be perpetuated over generations, and is a legal contract between parties. The model needs lots of work, but it’s a good place to start.

Thanks. I’m okay with your answer, and I am definitely on the same page with you on these issues. I agree that the corporate model might be a good concept to start with and, as you said, needs a lot of work.

But I would want to research the historic origins of the corporate model to understand its nature and any endemic problems. Having its origin as a government creation, the corporate model has inhuman tendencies that conflict with the principle of individual sovereignty in my opinion. I would not want the secessionist movement to embrace the corporate model without extremely careful examination.

Have you considered that major private corporations (providing limited liability to their officers, etc.) exist mainly because of government recognition and would need major changes to survive in a non-state society of sovereign individuals? (What individual would do business with another individual who claims immunity in the case of selling shoddy products?)

Russell, I did also include your … Constitution article on the blogger within my website back in October, it is excellent indeed. We do need to get crackin’ while we still can. Time is running out for actually doing and effecting your good concept, tho.

[…] and Baldwin: Both Wrong on Secession Posted on February 14, 2010 by Bill Miller This article by Russell D. Longcore on DumpDC.com Some of you people need to get a grip on reality. … any American state that wishes to secede […]

Please allow me to speculate on a few possibilities, and comment on some as yet, unmentioned probabilities.

One:
The suggestion that State X establishes its monetary independence on the surface seems desirable until one considers the can of worms X will confront when the International bankers put pressure on the rest of the States to isolate X from interstate, and international commerce, and that is nothing compared to other methods they have to physically invade the territory of State X.
Two:
As yet, nothing has been said on the subject of just how many existing State office holders have their allegiance to the Bankers, and play lip service to their constituents. And who among us is unaware of the power the Bankers have over the Federal government? As I see it, regardless of how much preparation State X makes, it will encounter massive resistance from its own citizens, other States, and the Feds, with little or no assets to defend itself with.
Three:
Since no one person could possibly have the experience and intellect needed to redesign a system of governance that would solve our problems, why not consider putting forth a call for voluntary members of a think tank and charging them with the task. Nothing more needs to be said about the number of elbows each State has to contend with. As for me, I have never voted in my 69 years, and never will until each office requires a candidate to present a dissertation (so to speak) on his/her comprehension of the responsibilities, and implementation methods available to perform the duties of said office. This would be the first step in establishing accountability.
Identifying the intellectuals needed to redesign government is in its self a massive endeavor, and finding such people who would be willing to subject their selves to criticism, suggestions, and possible reprisals would automatically place them on a suspect list, but much more difficult endeavors have been accomplished in the past.
Four:
There are many more problems and unknowns in the establishment of the Constitution, [and the can of worms it crawled out of], than we could possibly be aware of, and one such astounding example is the information you will find on these two links. http://www.atgpress.com/kifap/indexjm.htmhttp://www.atgpress.com/inform/indexinf.htm
Once you have mastered the ability to control yourself and not consider the information there ridiculous, you may find out how all of this was really possible, and reconsider the danger we really face.
OldDog